Bangalore District Court
Chikka Honnaiah vs Kapur Singh on 10 December, 2025
KABC030002452023
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.118/2023
PRESENT: Sri.Vinod Balnaik
B.A. LL.B (Spl.)
IX Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
COMPLAINANT:-
The State of Karnataka,
through PSI of City Market PS.
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
ACCUSED:-
Kapur Singh,
S/o Raj Purohit,
53 years,
R/at No.92/5,
Ground Floor,
Mamulpete,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.K.R. - Advocate)
2
C.C.No.118/2023
1. Date of Commencement of : 08.09.2022
Offence.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 08.09.2022
3. Name of Complainant : Sri.Chikkahonnaiah
4. Offences Complained U/sec. : 51(1) (B) & 63 of Copy Right
Act
and section 420 of IPC.
5. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the PSI of City Market Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 51(1) (B) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 07.09.2022 within the limits of Cottonpete Police Station situated at M/S. Praveen Novelties, No.92, ABM Market, Mamulpet, Bengaluru, the accused was selling spurious/counterfeit SKY BAGS of sky bag company without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 51 (1)(B) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
03. After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec. 51 (1)(B) & 63 of Copy Right Act 3 C.C.No.118/2023 and section 420 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly the accused appeared before the court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copy and other prosecution papers were furnished to the accused by complying the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
04. Heard both side on framing of charge, perused the prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused, the charges has been framed and the same was read over to him, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Hence the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
05. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the accused, the following points are arisen for my consideration.
POINTS
01. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 07.09.2022 within the limits of Cottonpete Police Station situated at M/S. Praveen Novelties, No.92, ABM Market, Mamulpet, Bengaluru, the accused was selling spurious/counterfeit SKY BAGS company SKY BAGS without obtaining any permission of company authority and cheated to the company and public and thus the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 51 (1)(B) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.?
02. What order or sentence?
06. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the witnesses i.e., CW.7 as PW.1, CW.2 as PW.2, CW.6 as PW.3 and 4 C.C.No.118/2023 got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to 9 and also MO.1. CW.3 reported as died and CW.4 & 5 are not examined before this court.
07. After completion of evidence of prosecution, it is noticed that, Ex.P.7 is marked through CW.7/ PW.1 the said Ex.P.7 is the report dated 07.10.2022 issued by CW.6 / PW.3 with respect to counterfeit bags, but wherein the CW.6 has not put his signature on the said report. Hence, 313 statement of the accused is dispensed.
08. Heard the arguments. My findings on the above said points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the negative. Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
09. Point No.1: To prove the case, the prosecution has examined CW.7 as PW.1, who being the Investigation Officer has deposed about receiving of complaint, registering of crime and submitting of FIR, conducting of Panchanama at MBM Market, Shop No.92, Praveen Novalties, Mamulpet, Bengaluru and seizer of 150 SKY bags, arresting of accused, recording statements of CW.2 to 5 and deposed about filing of charge sheet against the 5 C.C.No.118/2023 accused. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution and discharging of his official duty.
10. The prosecution has examined CW.2 as PW.2, who is the authorized officer of EIPR India Pvt.Ltd Company and lodged the complaint and identified the seized SKY BAGS from the accused shop as they are duplicate SKY BAGS. In his evidence, he has deposed that, he has lodged the complaint to the police about the sale of duplicate SKY BAGS within the limits of Cottonpete Police Station M/S. Praveen Novelties, No.92, ABM Market, Mamulpet, Bengaluru, He has also deposed about the raid conducted by the police and has deposed that, they seized counterfeit/ spurious 150 SKY BAGS and police have conducted the panchanama in his presence and they came along with accused and items. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
11. Further, CW.6 examined as PW.3, he examined the material objects related to this case and submitted the report regarding its quality. Thereby, he too supported the case of prosecution and discharging of his official duty.
6
C.C.No.118/2023
12. It is pertinent to note here that, PW.1 being the Investigation Officer has supported the case of prosecution. But in his cross examination has deposed that, "... ನಿಪಿ.4ನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಬೆರಳಚ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಸದರಿಯವರನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರನ್ನಾಗಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತನ ಅಂಗಡಿಯಿಂದ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲುಗಳನ್ನು ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ಛಾಯಾ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ವೀಡಿಯೋ ಚಿತ್ರೀಕರಣವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.....", which creates doubt about the conduct of raid and as well as conduct of panchanama at the spot. Further, in his examination in chief has deposed that, on 09.09.2022 he has issued notice u/Sec. 41 of Cr.P.C., to CW.6 to submit the genuineness report with respect to seized bags. But after careful perusal of Ex.P.7 which is the said report issued by CW.6 wherein CW.6 has not put his signature. Hence, the said report is not believable, whether the same has been given by CW.6 or not.
13. Further, PW.3 in his cross examination has deposed that, "... ನಿಪಿ.6ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ...." whereas PW.1 in his cross examination has deposed that, he has issued notice to CW.6 on 09.09.2022 which creates doubt about the same. Hence, for the reasons discussed supra, this court cannot come to 7 C.C.No.118/2023 conclusion that, the accused has committed the alleged offences. Hence, the doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Thus, there are no any incriminating materials to establish the alleged offence leveled against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the Point No.1 in the negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded to the above points, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec. 51 (1) (B) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty. 8
C.C.No.118/2023 The bags reported in PF No.80/2022 are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
(Dictated Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this 10th day of December 2025).
2025 (Sri Vinod Balnaik) IX Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW.1 : Sanjeev M.N. PW.2 : T.Manimaran PW.3 : Satheesh Kumar
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL----------- List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.3 : Notice
Ex.P.4 : Panchaname
9
C.C.No.118/2023
Ex.P.5 & 6 : Notices
Ex.P.7 : Report
Ex.P.8 : Complaint
Ex.P.9 : Company related Document
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-
--------NIL----------- Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
MO.1 : Bags
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAHU VINOD LAHU BALNAIK
BALNAIK Date: 2025.12.27
12:20:55 +0530
IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.10
C.C.No.118/2023 Judgment pronounced in the open court (Vide separate order).
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec. 51 (1) (B) & 63 of Copy Right Act and section 420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue in force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty. The bags reported in PF No.80/2022 are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
IX A.C.J.M. 11 C.C.No.118/2023 Bengaluru City.